There may be a different reason to keep Stingray secret.
Once subject to scrutiny in court, I suspect there are secrets in how it works that somebody does not want to be exposed.
I don't think it is necessarily something illegal, but something that if generally known would enable any weekend electronics hacker to break into the mobile communications networks.
Maybe secret keys or credentials. Or maybe some security mechanism designed in the late 1980s isn't secure enough for the 21st century -- but changing it everywhere takes years. It's not like doing a simple Linux software update.
The fact that they prefer to let criminals go free -- in multiple jurisdictions -- even in multiple NATIONS says a lot. There is something so secret in stingray that it transcends national governments. I suspect it is a technical secret.
The brightest minds in our police department have discovered an amazing, incredible hack. As you know, once a suspect is arrested for resisting arrest, their mugshot is normally taken. Most police departments have someone of sufficient technical skill and capability who are able to somehow use the mugshot to unlock the suspect's phone. That enables the phone to be searched to provide additional basis for the the arrest.
Just thought you would like to know. The federal government may be able to find people skilled enough to use this same sophisticated technique.
It is true that $11 million is a drop in the ocean.
But it is over 3 times the amount spent yearly for Meals on Wheels that Trump wants to cancel to ensure that some seniors starve.
Or compare that amount to the cost of keeping children from starving at school. Or from starving at home.
And $11 million is what the taxpayers spend for more than three useless weekend golfing trips to Mar a Logo to help personally enrich the president and his businesses.
This is the least despicable thing the government can do. Their statements about it strive to be the least untruthful. The result will be the least evil. And people victimized will hate it the least. The new collection group will strive to be the least dishonest that they can be. And the least crooked. And they will pay artists the least amount possible.
At least the Kenyan government did something.
This new collection group will be less corrupt, less crooked, less coercive, less unscrupulous, and less overreaching than the previous thieves.
Once again we see how something old can be patented by adding the magical incantation suffix ". . . on a computer". Or in some cases ". . . on an iPhone!!!!!!".
It seems like the computer should be the first line of matching for automation purposes, followed by a human carefully looking at positive matches to screen out obvious mismatches.
If they did that, I wonder how low the error rate might go?
The algorithms used to identify matches are inaccurate about 15% of the time, and are more likely to misidentify black people than white people.
So the FBI's algorithm says "they all look alike to me"?
Maybe it is a legitimate problem like inadequate training data for the AI. Or that the AI inaccurately makes certain facial measurements that are compared. It seems to me that if the developers of this can make it work for white people, they can make it work for black people. It's just a technical problem.
Regardless of race / color, of the entire 15 % that are misidentified, maybe someone should be looking at WHY they are misidentified. What metrics or other factors caused these two person's photographs to be considered the same person? Can the algorithm be tweaked for that? Or can these be introduced into the training data as a definite mismatch to improve the AI training?
I understand that legislators can make the laws be whatever they want.
But when someone says they are committed to the rule of law, I tend to assume, or I used to assume that means they support things like citizens' right to have private encrypted communications and data storage.
When these two things no longer go together it is a sign that the country is sick. The laws, at least in part, are no longer to protect the citizens, but at least in part to work against them.
A hundred years ago, maybe people were better at figuring out what was fake and what was real. Life was much harder.
Now we live in a fake world surrounded by fakeness. Fake food, fake grass, fake boobs, fake leather, fake hair, fake music, and fake reality tv. Why should fake news seem any less real.
Owning the platforms should not give one the right to spread outright disprovable lies and made up stories and conspiracy theories. Doing so is very much against the public interest. It is against the public good. Just like dumping pollution into a public resource such as the air or water.
At the very least, it is false and fraudulent advertising to call it "news". Call it "The National Enquirer". Or Fox Nutcases.
The FCC required radio and tv to carry news, because doing so was in the public interest.
On the post: FCC Kills Charter Merger Condition That Would Have Forced ISPs To Compete
The FCC is doing this because
On the post: Canadian Prosecutors Cut Loose 35 Mafia Suspects Rather Than Turn Over Info On Stingray Devices
Re: Telling priorities
Once subject to scrutiny in court, I suspect there are secrets in how it works that somebody does not want to be exposed.
I don't think it is necessarily something illegal, but something that if generally known would enable any weekend electronics hacker to break into the mobile communications networks.
Maybe secret keys or credentials. Or maybe some security mechanism designed in the late 1980s isn't secure enough for the 21st century -- but changing it everywhere takes years. It's not like doing a simple Linux software update.
The fact that they prefer to let criminals go free -- in multiple jurisdictions -- even in multiple NATIONS says a lot. There is something so secret in stingray that it transcends national governments. I suspect it is a technical secret.
On the post: If A Phone's Facial Recognition Security Can Be Defeated By A Picture Of A Face, What Good Is It?
Re:
The brightest minds in our police department have discovered an amazing, incredible hack. As you know, once a suspect is arrested for resisting arrest, their mugshot is normally taken. Most police departments have someone of sufficient technical skill and capability who are able to somehow use the mugshot to unlock the suspect's phone. That enables the phone to be searched to provide additional basis for the the arrest.
Just thought you would like to know. The federal government may be able to find people skilled enough to use this same sophisticated technique.
Sincerely,
Chief Donut Eater
On the post: Newly Leaked Documents Expose Stunning Waste And Incompetence At The Copyright Office
Re:
But it is over 3 times the amount spent yearly for Meals on Wheels that Trump wants to cancel to ensure that some seniors starve.
Or compare that amount to the cost of keeping children from starving at school. Or from starving at home.
And $11 million is what the taxpayers spend for more than three useless weekend golfing trips to Mar a Logo to help personally enrich the president and his businesses.
On the post: EU Plans To Weaken Encrypted Communications Despite Countless Warnings It Can't Be Done Safely
Re: Re: A place for terrorists to hide
On the post: Kenyan Government Axes Corrupt Copyright Collection Group, Replaces It With New Collection Group That Will Surely Be Less Corrupt
It's the least that the Kenyan government can do
At least the Kenyan government did something.
This new collection group will be less corrupt, less crooked, less coercive, less unscrupulous, and less overreaching than the previous thieves.
So it sounds like an improvement. :-)
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Storing Files In Folders
The magic pixie dust
On the post: Oversight Committee Finds FBI's Facial Recognition Database Still Filled With Innocent People, Still Wrong 15% Of The Time
Re:
On the post: Oversight Committee Finds FBI's Facial Recognition Database Still Filled With Innocent People, Still Wrong 15% Of The Time
Re:
If they did that, I wonder how low the error rate might go?
On the post: Oversight Committee Finds FBI's Facial Recognition Database Still Filled With Innocent People, Still Wrong 15% Of The Time
misidentify more black people than white people
So the FBI's algorithm says "they all look alike to me"?
Maybe it is a legitimate problem like inadequate training data for the AI. Or that the AI inaccurately makes certain facial measurements that are compared. It seems to me that if the developers of this can make it work for white people, they can make it work for black people. It's just a technical problem.
Regardless of race / color, of the entire 15 % that are misidentified, maybe someone should be looking at WHY they are misidentified. What metrics or other factors caused these two person's photographs to be considered the same person? Can the algorithm be tweaked for that? Or can these be introduced into the training data as a definite mismatch to improve the AI training?
On the post: How A Little Metadata Made It Possible To Find FBI Director James Comey's Secret Twitter Account
Re: An apple is not an orange
On the post: EU Plans To Weaken Encrypted Communications Despite Countless Warnings It Can't Be Done Safely
A place for terrorists to hide
Try replacing WhatsApp with:
* private homes
* private gatherings
* basements
* motel rooms
* aircraft lavatories
* automobiles
On the post: How A Little Metadata Made It Possible To Find FBI Director James Comey's Secret Twitter Account
But it's "only" metadata
On the post: James Comey's New Idea: An International Encryption Backdoor Partnership
Re: If he's so knowledgeable about what's possible...
Don't tell me it's impossible.
I reject the 'it's impossible' response. I think you just haven't actually tried it.
On the post: James Comey's New Idea: An International Encryption Backdoor Partnership
Committed to the rule of law
But when someone says they are committed to the rule of law, I tend to assume, or I used to assume that means they support things like citizens' right to have private encrypted communications and data storage.
When these two things no longer go together it is a sign that the country is sick. The laws, at least in part, are no longer to protect the citizens, but at least in part to work against them.
On the post: FCC Boss Takes Aim At Efforts To Bring Broadband To The Poor
It's for their safety
On the post: Tractor Owners Using Pirated Firmware To Dodge John Deere's Ham-Fisted Attempt To Monopolize Repair
Is the firmware hackable?
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
Re: "Alice" in Wonderland
Now we live in a fake world surrounded by fakeness. Fake food, fake grass, fake boobs, fake leather, fake hair, fake music, and fake reality tv. Why should fake news seem any less real.
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
SHOULD they have a responsibility?
At the very least, it is false and fraudulent advertising to call it "news". Call it "The National Enquirer". Or Fox Nutcases.
The FCC required radio and tv to carry news, because doing so was in the public interest.
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
Some news
Effective April 1, 2017.
Next >>